Mark Titus, a defendant in the River Birch investigation, is asking a judge to delay his sentencing set for Wednesday, arguing that he needs time to address new allegations of misconduct involving members of his family. The request comes after prosecutors late last week filed a document saying that, after Titus agreed to plead guilty to embezzling charges last year, he and members of his family launched a "scheme" to block the government's seizure of ill-obtained assets.

The prosecution filing said Titus, his wife, his son and Titus' mother-in-law were involved in transactions designed to put cash and property out of the government's reach.

The motion to delay by Titus' attorney, James Ardoin, said the new allegations "dramatically impact the potential sentencing hearing" for Titus, and that his client hasn't had enough time to respond. The filing asked U.S. District Court Judge Ivan Lemelle for a 10-day delay. Lemelle is also expected to rule on a motion by Titus asking to withdraw his guilty plea.

Prosecutors, however, have filed a response opposing any delays, arguing that Titus' sentencing has been postponed four times already. In reference to the allegations involving Titus' family, prosecutors said that, "Titus is surely aware of his own properties and his attempt to shield those properties from forfeiture."

The government's response also says prosecutors let Titus know that they saw the transactions as improper back in August.

Titus' sentencing is scheduled for 2 p.m. Wednesday. It is unclear whether Lemelle will rule on the request for a delay before then.

Titus pleaded guilty last year to embezzling more than $1 million from a Houston company, allegedly with the help of River Birch landfill executive Dominick Fazzio, who is Titus' brother in law. Prosecutors have charged Fazzio, and they hoped to turn him into a cooperating witness in the criminal probe of landfill owners Fred Heebe and Jim Ward. But Fazzio has denied wrongdoing and his case set for trial later this month.

Heebe and Ward, who have not been charged in the probe, have said they did nothing wrong.

In his filing Tuesday, Ardoin also argued that the court's final pre-sentencing report on Titus contained key differences compared to a preliminary report. Paramount among them, Ardoin argued, was the deletion of a statement included in the first sentencing report that said the government wasn't seeking to seize Titus assets. In their reponse, prosecutors said that difference in the reports is "immaterial" to Titus sentencing.